Any of you read the Unabomber Manifesto? It's so brilliant, intellectual and genius worthy!

[Winston]

Have any of you read the Unabomber Manifesto by Ted Kaczynski called "Industrial Society and its Future"? If not, you should read it. It' a MUST READ! Totally BRILLIANT and LOGICAL! It's one of the most intellectual works I've ever read. It is very well reasoned, and all its arguments are logically connected. The insights in it go far beyond anything I've ever written.

In the manifesto, he explains with masterful logic why industrial society and technology must take away the freedoms of humanity, and ultimately must result in mankind becoming an artificial species, through a series of psychological and genetic modifications that must be done if the technological system is to survive.

He explains why in the pre-Industrial era, mankind was more free and autonomous in families, small groups and tribes, whereas today mankind is the slave and servant of large scale industries that he has no control over, hence why modern man is frustrated, unhappy and dysfunctional.

And his psychoanalysis into the psychology of liberals, whom he calls "leftists", is absolutely brilliant and insightful.

You all gotta read it. It's a brilliant masterpiece of logic and truth. There are many online versions of it. Here are some.

http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na ... o.text.htm

I can't believe that this was printed in the newspaper. It's way too intellectual for the average American and for the mainstream media which propagates a sheeple mentality and hive mind. No one in the mainstream media or establishment could produce such a great work exposing the truth about industrial society.

Also, it is being sold on Amazon.com in paperback too, and most reviewers gave it 5 stars because they agree that it's such a masterpiece of truth, logic and reason. Check it out.

[Cornfed]

Yes, Ted is a real hero. I was going to post a thread sayin so.

[Winston]

Yes, Ted is a real hero. I was going to post a thread sayin so.

Really? We must be all connected by some collective consciousness then.

Yeah but his brother was an absolute moron who never should have been born. He turned in his own brother to the FBI. f***ing traitor.

The Unabomber was on the verge of waking people up to the reality of the matrix. Who knows how far it could've gone.

But his stupid brother had to ruin it by helping the defenders of the inhumane system. He helped the bad guys instead of the awakening liberator which was his own brother.

If the media and government had continued publishing the Unabombers pamphlets, he probably would have stopped the bombing. It was a golden chance for something enlightening and awakening to be published into the mainstream for once.

But his evil brother had to ruin it in the name of the establishment. His brother might as well have been Satan. He probably turned him in for the reward offered by the FBI. The greedy bastard sold his soul. He should go down the same way that Judas Iscariot did.

[Gadfly]

Yes, Ted is a real hero. I was going to post a thread sayin so.

Really? We must be all connected by some collective consciousness then.

Yeah but his brother was an absolute moron who never should have been born. He turned in his own brother to the FBI. f***ing traitor.

The Unabomber was on the verge of waking people up. But then his stupid brother had to ruin it by helping the defenders of the inhumane system. He helped the bad guys instead of the awakening liberator which was his own brother.

If the media and government had continued publishing the Unabombers pamphlets, he probably would have stopped the bombing. It was a golden chance for something enlightening and awakening to be published into the mainstream for once.

But his evil brother had to ruin it in the name of the establishment. His brother might as well have been Satan. He probably turned him in for the reward offered by the FBI. The greedy bastard sold his soul. He should go down the same way that Judas Iscariot did.

Well, if you knew someone that has killed and will very likely kill again, would you stay silent?

[Winston]

Well, if you knew someone that has killed and will very likely kill again, would you stay silent?

It depends on the circumstances. In this case, the Unabomber did not need to kill anymore. He already got the media attention he wanted. He had the media in his grips. He was in a position to disseminate his information and wake people up. It was a golden opportunity missed because of his stupid brother. Someone always has to ruin such opportunities.

[newjazz]

Wow! I just read this thing and my head is still spinning!......I think I heard of this guy before but since I lived so long in france I wasn't familiar to what happened. I does make a shit load of sense to me however, it appears to me that he went crazy at some point. I just have a very had time accepting the idea of committing violence. Why couldn't He could have used other means to bring his ideas to the common people. Harming others is not something I would ever say is ok.....thanks anyway for posting this it's one of the most interesting finds I have had this year.

[Cornfed]

Well, if you knew someone that has killed and will very likely kill again, would you stay silent?

Killing a few people is no big deal in the scheme of things. Just a few less cars on the lot.

[Winston]

Well, if you knew someone that has killed and will very likely kill again, would you stay silent?

Killing a few people is no big deal in the scheme of things. Just a few less cars on the lot.

Well in any kind of warfare or revolution, even an informational one, innocent people get killed. That's always been an unfortunate consequence of battle.

But killing three people is nothing compared to the millions that the US government and military and CIA have killed to start wars or gain control.

Most likely the three that he killed were not random but targeted because they were bad for mankind in some way.

But yeah preferably peaceful solutions and ways of disseminating information are better. However the Unabomber said in his manifesto that his manifesto would not have gotten any attention if he had not killed a few people.

[MrPeabody]

Kaczynski was set up. He was a subject of a brutal mind control experiment at Harvard which pushed him over the edge. He was a child prodigy and an authentic genius who was destroyed by the system.

"He also participated in a personality assessment study conducted by Dr. Henry Murray, an expert on stress interviews.[16] Students in Murray's study were told they would be debating personal philosophy with a fellow student.[17] Instead, they were subjected to a "purposely brutalizing psychological experiment"[17] stress test, which was an extremely stressful, personal, and prolonged psychological attack. During the test, students were taken into a room and connected to electrodes that monitored their physiological reactions, while facing bright lights and a one-way mirror. Each student had previously written an essay detailing their personal beliefs and aspirations: the essays were turned over to an anonymous attorney, who would enter the room and individually belittle each student based in part on the disclosures they had made. This was filmed, and students' expressions of impotent rage were played back to them several times later in the study. According to author Alston Chase, Kaczynski's records from that period suggest he was emotionally stable when the study began. Kaczynski's lawyers attributed some of his emotional instability and dislike of mind control techniques to his participation in this study.[17][18] Indeed, some have suggested that this experience may have been instrumental in Kaczynski's future actions.[19]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Another interesting fact is that one of his victims was Dr. Gelernter who has written a book exposing Cultural Marxism in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-Lite

[Winston]

My favorite parts of the manifesto that are very deep and spot on:

"THE POWER PROCESS

33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.

35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals."

This section explains why families and traditional values have broken down in America:

"50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]"

[Winston]

Brilliant point about why the system has to modify people:

"119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs.
Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs
of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social
ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the
fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but
by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many
human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent
that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of
the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For
example, the system provides people with food because the system
couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's
psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it
couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious.
But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert
constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the
system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the
educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a
mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A
chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask
whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their
time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put
out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining,"
no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in
this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to
technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put
before technical necessity there would be economic problems,
unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in
our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual
behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without
showing signs of stress."

These sections explain why technology cannot coexist with freedom:

"126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force
than the aspiration for freedom.

127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom
often turns out to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it
very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A
walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace
without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of
technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced
they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away
from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't
want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel
much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized
transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly
man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it
became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car,
especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one
likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of
traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various
obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration,
insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on
purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer
optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the
arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority
of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of
employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that
they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they
must use public transportation, in which case they have even less
control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the
walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually
has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to
serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous
and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we
have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item
of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept
or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many
cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people
eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our
sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF
appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid
long-distance communications . . . how could one argue against any of
these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical
advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to
resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many
advantages and no disadvantages. Yet as we explained in paragraphs
59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created world
in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in
the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians,
corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and
bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21]
The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic
engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a
genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease It does no
apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of
genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an
engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God,
or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs)."

[Winston]

Great points about freedom:

"95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a
certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are
not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that
exists in a society is determined more by the economic and
technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of
government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were
monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were
controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets
the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than out
society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient
mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern,
well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications,
no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of
average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control."

"16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule
there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than
there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there
was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and
after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial
Revolution took hold in this country. In "Violence in America:
Historical and Comparative Perspectives," edited by Hugh Davis Graham
and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, it is explained how in
pre-industrial America the average person had greater independence and
autonomy than he does today, and how the process of industrialization
necessarily led to the restriction of personal freedom."

[Ghost]

.

[HenryGeorge]

Former French Professor and Writer Jacques Ellul also made great points as well concerning Technology and it's effects...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51IoQOJ0SfY

[newjazz]

Former French Professor and Writer Jacques Ellul also made great points as well concerning Technology and it's effects...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51IoQOJ0SfY

Much thanks for the link!......I just watched it and supports what I already had notions about! Surely, Food for thought.....

I forget where I read that in the fifties there was a think tank to study the probability of an extra terrestrial contact and the result of it was that it almost with certainty not happen because a tech based civilization would only have 100 years max before it would destroy itself. With The vast distances of space the required level of technological advancement that would be impossible to attain!.....